Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review aimed to evaluate periodontal parameters in orthodontically tractioned teeth compared with the respective non-tractioned contralateral teeth.
UNASSIGNED: Search strategies were developed for six electronic databases and gray literature. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for the outcomes of interest. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) tool.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, 2,082 articles were identified, of which 24 were selected for the qualitative synthesis. A significant difference was observed between the impacted and contralateral teeth (mean difference [MD] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10-0.40; I2 = 0%) when the gingival index was evaluated. Additionally, impacted teeth showed a greater probing depth, with a significant mean difference between the groups (MD = 0.14; 95% CI = 0.07-0.20; I2 = 6%). Most studies had a low risk of bias; however, the certainty of the evidence was very low owing to the design of existing studies.
UNASSIGNED: The evidence in the literature indicated that tractioned teeth might show worsening of periodontal parameters related to the gingival index and probing depth; however, the evidence remains uncertain about this outcome. Furthermore, probing depth should be considered regarding its clinical significance because of the small effect size observed.
UNASSIGNED: Search strategies were developed for six electronic databases and gray literature. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for the outcomes of interest. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) tool.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, 2,082 articles were identified, of which 24 were selected for the qualitative synthesis. A significant difference was observed between the impacted and contralateral teeth (mean difference [MD] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10-0.40; I2 = 0%) when the gingival index was evaluated. Additionally, impacted teeth showed a greater probing depth, with a significant mean difference between the groups (MD = 0.14; 95% CI = 0.07-0.20; I2 = 6%). Most studies had a low risk of bias; however, the certainty of the evidence was very low owing to the design of existing studies.
UNASSIGNED: The evidence in the literature indicated that tractioned teeth might show worsening of periodontal parameters related to the gingival index and probing depth; however, the evidence remains uncertain about this outcome. Furthermore, probing depth should be considered regarding its clinical significance because of the small effect size observed.
摘要：
UNASSIGNED：本系统综述旨在评估正畸牵引牙齿与未牵引对侧牙齿的牙周参数。
UNASSIGNED：为六个电子数据库和灰色文献开发了搜索策略。对感兴趣的结果进行随机效应荟萃分析。此外，使用等级(建议评估的等级，发展,和评估)工具。
未经评估：总的来说，确定了2,082篇文章，其中24人被选作定性合成。当评估牙龈指数时，在患侧和对侧牙齿之间观察到显着差异（平均差[MD]=0.25;95％置信区间[CI]=0.10-0.40;I2=0％）。此外,受影响的牙齿显示出更大的探测深度，两组之间的平均差异显着（MD=0.14;95％CI=0.07-0.20;I2=6％）。大多数研究的偏倚风险较低；然而，由于现有研究的设计,证据的确定性非常低.
UNASSIGNED：文献中的证据表明，牵引牙齿可能显示与牙龈指数和探查深度有关的牙周参数恶化；但是，关于这一结果的证据仍然不确定。此外，由于观察到的效应大小较小，因此应考虑探测深度的临床意义。
UNASSIGNED：为六个电子数据库和灰色文献开发了搜索策略。对感兴趣的结果进行随机效应荟萃分析。此外，使用等级(建议评估的等级，发展,和评估)工具。
未经评估：总的来说，确定了2,082篇文章，其中24人被选作定性合成。当评估牙龈指数时，在患侧和对侧牙齿之间观察到显着差异（平均差[MD]=0.25;95％置信区间[CI]=0.10-0.40;I2=0％）。此外,受影响的牙齿显示出更大的探测深度，两组之间的平均差异显着（MD=0.14;95％CI=0.07-0.20;I2=6％）。大多数研究的偏倚风险较低；然而，由于现有研究的设计,证据的确定性非常低.
UNASSIGNED：文献中的证据表明，牵引牙齿可能显示与牙龈指数和探查深度有关的牙周参数恶化；但是，关于这一结果的证据仍然不确定。此外，由于观察到的效应大小较小，因此应考虑探测深度的临床意义。
